Topal Murat, Köse Ahmet
Kastamonu University Medical Faculty Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology.
Sağlik Bilimleri University Erzurum Regional Research and Training Hospital Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turkey.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 May 22;99(21):e20312. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020312.
The treatment of type 3 acromioclavicular joint injuries has still controversial issues. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the radiological and functional outcomes of the suture anchor and double-button fixation methods for the treatment of type 3 acromioclavicular joint injuries.This study included 20 patients who underwent suture anchor (9 patients) and double-button fixations (11 patients) for isolated type 3 acromioclavicular dislocation. Injuries were classified according to the Rockwood Classification System. Coracoclavicular(CC) distances and anterior translation have been measured pre-operatively and at the 12th month follow-up. Functional evaluation was performed using the DASH, and Constant-Murley scores of the patients were recorded at the12th-month follow-up.The mean age of the patients was 37 (22-50) years in Group 1(double-button group) and 39 (24-56) years in Group 2(suture anchor group). All of the patients were male. There was no statistically significant difference between the DASH and Constant-Murley scores of the 2 groups (P > .05). The mean DASH score of the patients evaluated at the postoperative 12th month was 6.65 (0-38.3) in Group 1 and 2.48 (0-4.2) in Group 2. The mean Constant-Murley score of the patients evaluated at the postoperative 12th month was 89,6 (50-98) in Group 1 and 93,6 (90-98) in Group 2. Comparison of the pre- and post-operative CC distances and pre- and post-operative anterior translation distances of both groups revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding postoperative CC distances and anterior translation distances (P > .05).Suture anchor and double-button techniques are reliable treatment methods that are not superior to one another and can yield excellent functional outcomes.
3型肩锁关节损伤的治疗仍存在争议。在这项回顾性研究中，我们旨在比较缝线锚钉和双纽扣固定方法治疗3型肩锁关节损伤的影像学和功能结果。本研究纳入了20例因孤立性3型肩锁关节脱位接受缝线锚钉固定（9例）和双纽扣固定（11例）的患者。损伤根据Rockwood分类系统进行分类。术前及术后12个月随访时测量喙锁（CC）距离和前向移位。使用DASH进行功能评估，并在术后12个月随访时记录患者的Constant-Murley评分。第1组（双纽扣组）患者的平均年龄为37（22 - 50）岁，第2组（缝线锚钉组）为39（24 - 56）岁。所有患者均为男性。两组的DASH和Constant-Murley评分之间无统计学显著差异（P>0.05）。术后12个月评估时，第1组患者的平均DASH评分为6.65（0 - 38.3），第2组为2.48（0 - 4.2）。术后第12个月评估时，第1组患者的平均Constant-Murley评分为89.6（50 - 98），第2组为93.6（90 - 98）。两组术前和术后CC距离以及术前和术后前向移位距离的比较显示，两组术后CC距离和前向移位距离无统计学显著差异（P>0.05）。缝线锚钉和双纽扣技术都是可靠的治疗方法，彼此之间并无优势，均可产生优异的功能结果。
